Bidenpalooza and the Death of Freedom

As Josh pointed out, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has issued a press release flatly contradicting Vice President Joe Biden’s claims about the HHS Mandate from last night’s debate. Turns out Biden’s “facts” weren’t really facts after all.

Many thanks to the USCCB for clarifying the matter.

Now, speaking of clarifying, do the bishops…any bishops…even a single bishop…want to comment on Joe Biden’s “Catholic” defense of the abortion license?

While we’re waiting for that, here’s what one bishop — the previous Bishop of Rome — had to say about the matter in 1995:

To claim the right to abortion…and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: “Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin” (Jn 8:34).

—Blessed Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae

I wonder what Joe Biden thinks of those facts.

Stephen P. White is a fellow in Catholic Studies at the Ethics and Public Policy Center in Washington, DC and coordinator of the Tertio Millennio Seminar on the Free Society. The views expressed here are his own.

16 thoughts on “Bidenpalooza and the Death of Freedom

  1. Rich says:

    This Bishops cannot go very far saying that Biden was not truthful, because he was. They are still chasing the myth that they somehow are paying for what the insurance company pays.
    Their big trouble is not trying to find a solution but letting this become an overgrown dispute. The people are seeing the Bishops as a bunch of nuts on this. Besides, the bishops are not of one accord on this. They just do not all put their dirty laundry out for all to see.
    But the CV take on reality is always biased anyway. Anthing they can say or do for Mitt is alright without regard to truth. And all fourteen of the CV faithful will lay down their lives and surrender their faith to be a true CV believer.

    1. Curious says:

      Please ignore this paid troll comment, but please pray for Rich. If we all do this, it will be more benefitial towards his conversion than the payments he/she receives from the Soros Obamabot propaganda machine for each paid response he baits others into. A Hail Mary would be greatly apprecitated. Let us all join Mary in our plea for Rich’s conversion from his god to God. Thank you, God bless

    2. Joe M says:

      Rich wants us to believe that if you buy a happy meal, you didn’t really buy it from McDonalds. You just paid McDonalds and some person working the driving-thru gave it to you for free.

      The absurdity of what Rich and Obama are arguing is exposed when we simply ask why insurance companies aren’t required to give out contraceptives regardless of whether or not the employee has a policy with an employer?

      If there is no connection between employers paying for the contraceptives, why does the employee have to be employed with an insurance policy to receive the contraceptives?

  2. THANK YOU FOR THAT GREAT BJPII QUOTE!!!

  3. AuthenticBioethics says:

    I don’t know about the bishops, but other folks are. :) http://authenticbioethics.blogspot.com/2012/10/fact-checking-joe-biden-on-abortion.html

    @Ryan Sold Out: I hear you. Do you mind me asking who you’ll vote for? We do have to work at this in steps, however, and getting Obama out is a very good, very big first step. If you reject every imperfection, you may end up with a grave evil instead.

    @Pavlo: The dispute over personhood exists only as a tool to justify abortion. If we can call some living human individuals “non-persons,” we can kill them. The very young, the very old, the very sick, the very deformed. It is about coming up with a plausible rationale to justify the right to kill. The debate over personhood is a smokescreen. It is irrelevant, because in any case, the unborn individual is still a living, human individual on track to becoming an adult. If any of that is not true, then the woman is not pregnant, and there is no need for abortion. How about this defintion: A person is any living human individual. What’s wrong with that? Anything else is just scientific-sounding jargon used to justify killing some innocent living human individuals.

  4. Pavlo says:

    Abortion is not the killing of a baby, it is the killing of a fetus, which is not “quite” the same thing. The dispute over when *personhood* (as opposed to *life*) begins is what makes abortion a controversial issue. Just saying.

    1. Pavlo says:

      Sorry, this should have been in reply to Paul C. No matter.

    2. Stephen White says:

      Science tells us that the fetus is an individual member of the species homo sapiens–a humang being. Are there living members of the human species that are not persons?

    3. maryellen schroeder says:

      @ Pavlo: Let’s call these innocents “unborn humans”, if you find offense with the term baby as opposed to fetus. If you undergo an abortion, you kill an unborn human. A person at age two is the same person at age twenty, with a little intervening time, oxygen, nutrition and love. A one-celled unborn human is the same person as he or she is at twenty with the same intervening conditions.

    4. BenM says:

      The killing of a zygote, the killing of a fetus, the killing of a baby, the killing of an infant, the killing of a child, the killing of a pre-pubescent, the killing of an adolescent, the killing of a young adult, the killing of a mature adult, the killing of an octogenarian. I just stated the same thing ten different ways. Every one of them means exactly the same thing, the termination of a human life, in the estimation of Science and in the eyes of God. To argue otherwise reveals either accidental or intentional ignorance.

      1. Stupid Religious Folk says:

        Weird. Why are mist vegetarians more than happy to eat a egg, but won’t eat a hamburger?

  5. Paul C says:

    Just because the supreme court ruled that abortion is legal in the United states, doesn’t change the fact that abortion is the killing of an innocent baby, which is immoral according to the teachings of the church.

    1. Ryan Sold Out says:

      So true. That’s why we shouldn’t vote for candidates who are in favor of abortion even in cases of rape, incest, and the health and life of the mother. I thought Ryan was faithful to Catholic teaching but last night he made it clear that he would abide by the Romney position in that respect. He showed that he cared more about getting elected than abiding by the moral teachings of the Church.

      1. Joe M says:

        If Romney/Ryan win, it has the potential of saving many lives from the Obama policy of tax payer funded, on-demand abortion. That cause is worth voting for. We can always continue fighting against abortion in all cases WHILE we are making ground against pro-abortion politicians such as Obama/Biden.

  6. I understand LOGIC says:

    The Bishops disagree with Biden, but that doesn’t mean that the facts aren’t the facts. The Supreme Court has found that there is a right to abortion. I get that they Bishops disagree and they think this is evil. That doesn’t change the facts.

    1. Joe M says:

      Here’s a fact: The Supreme Court can find that Roe v. Wade was an incorrect ruling and over-turn it.

      Facts are fun and give hope!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.